Next Sunday's Globe

[BCMurt09]

a few things after reading through the posts:
2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

I posted this in BCI as well. And it's not that I think Leahy doesn't deserve some credit. I mean, he probably doesn't but whatever. But BC has remained solidly between #31-35 in US News rankings for 10+ years now. So it's not like the academic profile of the school has gone off also.

You could really apply the cluster tuck of athletics to the whole school. Content with being mediocre. And that is on the schools President and BOT.

[twballgame9]

From what I can tell... our Board has only 2 Trustees under 50. One is a priest and one is a chick.

Apparently, GDF has been talking to the press: http://www.repubblica.it/rubriche/la-st ... ref=search

This was funny.

[BCSUPERFAN22]

a few things after reading through the posts:
2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

I posted this in BCI as well. And it's not that I think Leahy doesn't deserve some credit. I mean, he probably doesn't but whatever. But BC has remained solidly between #31-35 in US News rankings for 10+ years now. So it's not like the academic profile of the school has gone off also.

You could really apply the cluster tuck of athletics to the whole school. Content with being mediocre. And that is on the schools President and BOT.

I was going to make this point as well. Maybe Leahy is happy being in that range, and as a result, does enough to maintain that standing. In the same light, he was probably fine with the state of the athletic department in 2007 and made similar decisions, why change when this is fine, not realizing that times were changing and additional investment was needed. It can also (at least partially) explain why the endowment has seen little growth compared to other peer schools.

The fact of the matter is, Leahy can't be praised for the success (and in reality, the stagnation) of academics and the failure of athletics. Any CEO of a business that has a major unit, one that is front and center and generates a large chunk of revenue, is going to be held accountable when said unit underperforms, regardless of what anything else is doing. While Leahy has done his part in raising the profile of the school academically, I bet you can make a point that athletics has done just as big a part in increasing the profile of the school nationally.

Its really quite simple, but somebody needs to ask Leahy why similar schools (from an academic perspective) such as ND, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Stanford all find it important to remain viable in athletics and why they spend money upgrading facilities and giving the Athletic Department the resources they need. What makes him think that BC is special, and can underfund but compete with schools like these (I'm not even going to try to add the baby rapists to this discussion). Again, maybe its arrogance, maybe he thinks the people that come to BC are special and can overcome everything. Whatever his reasoning is, its dead wrong.

[BCSUPERFAN22]

^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

Are our athletic admissions standards tougher than many ACC schools? Yes, but they are not even close to the same standards as a normal BC student goes through and they are similar to Duke. They are no where close to Ivy League or Ivy League sports. Admissions' biggest concern is that a kid can get by. If any athlete applies with a fourth-grade reading level, he's not getting in. Most coaches know if a kid will get through. I can't think of admissions screwing with a coach on a verbal since Aboushi. And the joke was on the admissions office there, because he went to UVA and managed to stay eligible.

I remember listening to Steve Logan on the radio once (post his time at BC). And one of the things he was talking about was certain schools ability to "hide" kids, and the fact that every school does it. He made the point that even at very good national schools, the academic thing isnt a real hurdle. He used the example of Georgia Tech, and how they use certain majors (I think at the time many players were enrolled in like a recreation science class or something like that) to get kids into school and hide them.

I think with a place like BC, getting them into school isnt the real issue, its keeping them eligible and hoping they can keep up. It doesn't do anyone any good if a kid is admitted and can't/won't do the bare minimum to stay eligble. With that being said, there are plenty of places where even a school like BC can hide kids (communications being the first one to come to mind). I personally don't buy the academic stuff in terms of admission. The only school that has a real gripe is Stanford, who still hold FB prospects to high standards, which is the reason why you see so many kids commit late, because they're waiting on admissions (i.e. Harrington and Donald Stewart).

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

From what I can tell... our Board has only 2 Trustees under 50. One is a priest and one is a chick.

Apparently, GDF has been talking to the press: http://www.repubblica.it/rubriche/la-st ... ref=search

This was funny.

i liked the comparison to the washington generals only because i feel like krusty for losing big on the eagles against wake

[Hoff]

a few things after reading through the posts:

1. If Hoff is correct than the focus of the article will be Bates, Dazz and Christian. There will likely be quotes attributed to Bates, but Dazz and Christian cant say a thing. If they did say something critical, they would be idiots. It will be fun to see the response. I think Bates knows that given what has transpired this year, that this piece is fair game. Christian, I still don't have a read on, I cant tell if he is a hot head or not. Which brings us to the Dazzler. If this article in any way points the finger at him for being a brutal coach or recruiter, he will flip his marbles. He is the thinnest skinned person alive. He also doesn't come across as the brightest guy alive, so it is entirely possible that he responds to the criticism in some public way, which would be great theatre. He is still pissed off about some imaginary articles that he thought were out there criticizing him in the middle of last years melt down. At one of his post game pressers he got super pissed off and essentially told all the writers in the room that he would get the last laugh on them for all the criticism he had taken, when the program had turned around. Nobody could find the existence of even one negative article. If he actually gets called out in this article, he may go off the reservation.

2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

3. I doubt the article even gets a mention of the BOT. I wish Hoehler would name them individually though. I want them to take a hit.

On point #1 I hadnt even thought of that but you're right. Addazio will flip his friggin lid if the article kills the coaches. It will def create some turmoil if one of the coaches goes on the record with anything negative because they have all been warned to fall on the sword with this article. Hopefully someone was smart enough to go as an "unnamed source"

That Addazio presser you mentioned was classic. The Herald and Globe handled him with kid gloves all year but Michael Sullivan (Heights) and I were critical of him last year during the losing streak. He went off on some tangent like YEA I JUST FORGOT TO COACH ALL OF A SUDDEN!

[HJS]

YEA I JUST FORGOT TO COACH ALL OF A SUDDEN!

That assumes facts that are not in evidence.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

hey hoff... are you mean gene?

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

... Do we really think that *** ******* was working on the theory of relativity while at the heights?

hr probably thought he was

[eagle9903]

a few things after reading through the posts:
2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

I posted this in BCI as well. And it's not that I think Leahy doesn't deserve some credit. I mean, he probably doesn't but whatever. But BC has remained solidly between #31-35 in US News rankings for 10+ years now. So it's not like the academic profile of the school has gone off also.

You could really apply the cluster tuck of athletics to the whole school. Content with being mediocre. And that is on the schools President and BOT.

I was going to make this point as well. Maybe Leahy is happy being in that range, and as a result, does enough to maintain that standing. In the same light, he was probably fine with the state of the athletic department in 2007 and made similar decisions, why change when this is fine, not realizing that times were changing and additional investment was needed. It can also (at least partially) explain why the endowment has seen little growth compared to other peer schools.

The fact of the matter is, Leahy can't be praised for the success (and in reality, the stagnation) of academics and the failure of athletics. Any CEO of a business that has a major unit, one that is front and center and generates a large chunk of revenue, is going to be held accountable when said unit underperforms, regardless of what anything else is doing. While Leahy has done his part in raising the profile of the school academically, I bet you can make a point that athletics has done just as big a part in increasing the profile of the school nationally.

Its really quite simple, but somebody needs to ask Leahy why similar schools (from an academic perspective) such as ND, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Stanford all find it important to remain viable in athletics and why they spend money upgrading facilities and giving the Athletic Department the resources they need. What makes him think that BC is special, and can underfund but compete with schools like these (I'm not even going to try to add the baby rapists to this discussion). Again, maybe its arrogance, maybe he thinks the people that come to BC are special and can overcome everything. Whatever his reasoning is, its dead wrong.

I don't know if it makes any sense to say even a small climb in the US reports ranking is stagnation. Without doing much googling, BC was 37th in 2005, 34th in 2010, 30th in 2016s, so BC has moved up 7 places in a decade jumping schools like Wisconsin, Case Western, NYU, UNC, William and Mary and Brandeis. I don't know specifically what has improved because the breakdowns aren't available without crossing the pay way, but in 2005 BC was unsurprisingly weak in faculty support and punches above its weight in admission percentage (which has actually dropped). I think the climb could continue into the mid twenties, but it probably isn't going below that. I also don't know what if any stock should be put in those ratings, which seem somewhat questionable for lots of reasons. where is the endowment comparison coming from and what are peer schools in that regard?

[BCSUPERFAN22]

a few things after reading through the posts:
2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

I posted this in BCI as well. And it's not that I think Leahy doesn't deserve some credit. I mean, he probably doesn't but whatever. But BC has remained solidly between #31-35 in US News rankings for 10+ years now. So it's not like the academic profile of the school has gone off also.

You could really apply the cluster tuck of athletics to the whole school. Content with being mediocre. And that is on the schools President and BOT.

I was going to make this point as well. Maybe Leahy is happy being in that range, and as a result, does enough to maintain that standing. In the same light, he was probably fine with the state of the athletic department in 2007 and made similar decisions, why change when this is fine, not realizing that times were changing and additional investment was needed. It can also (at least partially) explain why the endowment has seen little growth compared to other peer schools.

The fact of the matter is, Leahy can't be praised for the success (and in reality, the stagnation) of academics and the failure of athletics. Any CEO of a business that has a major unit, one that is front and center and generates a large chunk of revenue, is going to be held accountable when said unit underperforms, regardless of what anything else is doing. While Leahy has done his part in raising the profile of the school academically, I bet you can make a point that athletics has done just as big a part in increasing the profile of the school nationally.

Its really quite simple, but somebody needs to ask Leahy why similar schools (from an academic perspective) such as ND, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Stanford all find it important to remain viable in athletics and why they spend money upgrading facilities and giving the Athletic Department the resources they need. What makes him think that BC is special, and can underfund but compete with schools like these (I'm not even going to try to add the baby rapists to this discussion). Again, maybe its arrogance, maybe he thinks the people that come to BC are special and can overcome everything. Whatever his reasoning is, its dead wrong.

I don't know if it makes any sense to say even a small climb in the US reports ranking is stagnation. Without doing much googling, BC was 37th in 2005, 34th in 2010, 30th in 2016s, so BC has moved up 7 places in a decade jumping schools like Wisconsin, Case Western, NYU, UNC, William and Mary and Brandeis. I don't know specifically what has improved because the breakdowns aren't available without crossing the pay way, but in 2005 BC was unsurprisingly weak in faculty support and punches above its weight in admission percentage (which has actually dropped). I think the climb could continue into the mid twenties, but it probably isn't going below that. I also don't know what if any stock should be put in those ratings, which seem somewhat questionable for lots of reasons. where is the endowment comparison coming from and what are peer schools in that regard?

I have read it on here, that many comp schools have grown their endowments at a much more aggressive rate when compared to BC. Ill never be able to remember who said it, but when looking at comp schools and how they have grown the endowment BC does lack (BC 1.2 in '05 to 2.2 in '15; ND 3.6 in '05 to 8.6 in '15; NW 4.2 to 10.2; Vandy 2.6 to 4.1, Duke 3.8 to 7.3; Stanford 12.2 to 22.2). These are obv just numbers, so I can't speak to the nature of gains (additional giving vs fund performance).

I agree at looking at the USN reports from a YoY perspective probably doesn't make much sense. It is probably more useful to look at the profile over decades, and in that regard, BC has gone from a commuter school to a nationally elite university. How much of that can be attributed to Leahy vs Athletics vs something else, i don't know.

[BCMurt09]

^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

I know a recruit who was accepted to a non-revenue sports program who could barely read. This is legit too. The admissions are not ivy league and they are no where close to ivy league. It's time we stop using the myth of epic proportions as justification for sucking. This ain't Harvard or MIT or even a top 3 Nescac school, its more along the lines of UNC and Michigan, both of which seem to have no problems getting talented athletes.

I will hand it to Gene on this though, he did do a great job of selling tall tales about admissions standards to the uninformed public (to put it kindly).

Could we list the Top 3 NESCAC schools?

Colby ain't in there, for reasons that you have so kindly and unwittingly demonstrated to the board over the years

Thanks for the softball

I think the answer is Williams, Amherst, and Tufts. I think Bowdoin and Midd are next.

[eagle33]

Which brings us to the Dazzler. If this article in any way points the finger at him for being a brutal coach or recruiter, he will flip his marbles. He is the thinnest skinned person alive. He also doesn't come across as the brightest guy alive, so it is entirely possible that he responds to the criticism in some public way, which would be great theatre.

Dear God, please let this happen.

[eepstein0]

^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

I know a recruit who was accepted to a non-revenue sports program who could barely read. This is legit too. The admissions are not ivy league and they are no where close to ivy league. It's time we stop using the myth of epic proportions as justification for sucking. This ain't Harvard or MIT or even a top 3 Nescac school, its more along the lines of UNC and Michigan, both of which seem to have no problems getting talented athletes.

I will hand it to Gene on this though, he did do a great job of selling tall tales about admissions standards to the uninformed public (to put it kindly).

Could we list the Top 3 NESCAC schools?

Colby ain't in there, for reasons that you have so kindly and unwittingly demonstrated to the board over the years

Thanks for the softball

I think the answer is Williams, Amherst, and Tufts. I think Bowdoin and Midd are next.

Yes on Wiliams and Amherst. Not so sure on Tufts. All 5 of those are more selective than Colby albeit not by much.

[eepstein0]

^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

I know a recruit who was accepted to a non-revenue sports program who could barely read. This is legit too. The admissions are not ivy league and they are no where close to ivy league. It's time we stop using the myth of epic proportions as justification for sucking. This ain't Harvard or MIT or even a top 3 Nescac school, its more along the lines of UNC and Michigan, both of which seem to have no problems getting talented athletes.

I will hand it to Gene on this though, he did do a great job of selling tall tales about admissions standards to the uninformed public (to put it kindly).

Could we list the Top 3 NESCAC schools?

Colby ain't in there, for reasons that you have so kindly and unwittingly demonstrated to the board over the years

Thanks for the softball

I think the answer is Williams, Amherst, and Tufts. I think Bowdoin and Midd are next.

Ding ding ding, spot on including the Bowdoin and Midd astericts

Shouldn't you be hanging out with your fictional girlfriend?

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

In the dawghouse. She saw me click on one of tre's Russian Roullete posts and I lost. She now has her doubts. Thanks TRE

never let your left hand know what your right hand is doing...

you would know this if you ever gain access to the eo coaches lounge

[HJS]

I have read it on here, that many comp schools have grown their endowments at a much more aggressive rate when compared to BC. Ill never be able to remember who said it, but when looking at comp schools and how they have grown the endowment BC does lack (BC 1.2 in '05 to 2.2 in '15; ND 3.6 in '05 to 8.6 in '15; NW 4.2 to 10.2; Vandy 2.6 to 4.1, Duke 3.8 to 7.3; Stanford 12.2 to 22.2). These are obv just numbers, so I can't speak to the nature of gains (additional giving vs fund performance).

You read it here... but it was from someone like Corners and I immediately replied dismissing the absurdity. There is a lot to critique Leahy on, but the financial well-being of the institution is not among them.

I would've linked the thread, but alas... the search functionality doesn't seem to be working.

[twballgame9]

I have read it on here, that many comp schools have grown their endowments at a much more aggressive rate when compared to BC. Ill never be able to remember who said it, but when looking at comp schools and how they have grown the endowment BC does lack (BC 1.2 in '05 to 2.2 in '15; ND 3.6 in '05 to 8.6 in '15; NW 4.2 to 10.2; Vandy 2.6 to 4.1, Duke 3.8 to 7.3; Stanford 12.2 to 22.2). These are obv just numbers, so I can't speak to the nature of gains (additional giving vs fund performance).

You read it here... but it was from someone like Corners and I immediately replied dismissing the absurdity. There is a lot to critique Leahy on, but the financial well-being of the institution is not among them.

I would've linked the thread, but alas... the search functionality doesn't seem to be working.

shut up hansen

[BC923]

What could be written that I haven't already thought

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

I have read it on here, that many comp schools have grown their endowments at a much more aggressive rate when compared to BC. Ill never be able to remember who said it, but when looking at comp schools and how they have grown the endowment BC does lack (BC 1.2 in '05 to 2.2 in '15; ND 3.6 in '05 to 8.6 in '15; NW 4.2 to 10.2; Vandy 2.6 to 4.1, Duke 3.8 to 7.3; Stanford 12.2 to 22.2). These are obv just numbers, so I can't speak to the nature of gains (additional giving vs fund performance).

You read it here... but it was from someone like Corners and I immediately replied dismissing the absurdity. There is a lot to critique Leahy on, but the financial well-being of the institution is not among them.

I would've linked the thread, but alas... the search functionality doesn't seem to be working.

shut up hansen

this is a god post and you should feel good about it

[Logitano]

^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

Are our athletic admissions standards tougher than many ACC schools? Yes, but they are not even close to the same standards as a normal BC student goes through and they are similar to Duke. They are no where close to Ivy League or Ivy League sports. Admissions' biggest concern is that a kid can get by. If any athlete applies with a fourth-grade reading level, he's not getting in. Most coaches know if a kid will get through. I can't think of admissions screwing with a coach on a verbal since Aboushi. And the joke was on the admissions office there, because he went to UVA and managed to stay eligible.

Two words that refute anyone that says we have crazy high standards Brandon Brokaw. We took in a football player that even The Ohio State was not willing to go near. I also remember a parent posting on EA back in the day possibly Jet Smith's father or mother saying he needed to get his avg up to a C+ and something like a 900 on the SAT to get admitted. What normal BC applicant is even going to have a chance in hell of getting into BC with C/C+ with a 900 SAT avg not named Gabelli?

[DavidGordonsFoot]

not named Gabelli?

[2001Eagle]

My sources are telling me that the hit piece is actually going to be about Justin for letting this place go to shit, and will include quotes from BigPete to the effect that this places sucks anyway.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

My sources are telling me that the hit piece is actually going to be about Justin for letting this place go to shit, and will include quotes from BigPete to the effect that this places sucks anyway.

will there be a subsection on PRIDE????

[twballgame9]

Quotes from Big Pete are protected intellectual property, just saying.

[eagle9903]

Quotes from Big Pete are protected intellectual property, just saying.

Bitching about the search function is fair use or something

[2001Eagle]

My sources are telling me that the hit piece is actually going to be about Justin for letting this place go to shit, and will include quotes from BigPete to the effect that this places sucks anyway.

will there be a subsection on PRIDE????

That was unclear. But there will be a significant portion devoted to the drop off in MSpaint creativity and output. Indications are that members of the MTBS clique will be called out for their overriding success in torpedoing the nexus.

[2001Eagle]

Quotes from Big Pete are protected intellectual property, just saying.

Not if he volunteered them.

[flyingelvii]

I'm sure that was the only reason.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

I'm sure that was the only reason.

Yup, it had nothing to do with pool parties.